Military Review

New promising US missile defense system: delirium and a huge budget drank

New promising US missile defense system: delirium and a huge budget drank

The United States cannot find an application for its new “super-weapon”, the so-called universal guided projectile Hyper Velocity Projectile (HVP). There was already a bummer with a magnetic gun, there are problems with the cost of the product. But this does not bother the leadership of the Pentagon. Now it is going to use this “super-equipment” as a missile defense system. No kidding...

Program Manager Vincent Sabio offers the US Army a “low-cost and effective way” of protecting strategic facilities from ballistic missile warheads, which he says will be largely replaced by modern American anti-missile systems Patriot, THAAD and GBI.

Those are extremely expensive, and therefore they will never be able to intercept any large number of enemy warheads, but if you equip regular army units with new projectiles, this task will be easily solved.

I read all this nonsense and I think: and what else can you think of in order to snatch financing from Congress for your ideas.

Smooth was on paper

The idea of ​​creating a super-long-range, ultra-precise and super-universal projectile on paper looked very beautiful. Ammunition, suitable for use in almost all modern and promising American systems of naval and land howitzer artillery, capable of destroying the enemy’s manpower and equipment at great distances, as well as intercept anti-ship missiles. Its cool.

Almost as cool as the F-35. But miracles do not happen. In the same way as the unfortunate miracle of the American aircraft industry, a promising universal ammunition was initially sentenced to repeat the “success” of its colleague.

Size and weight matter

An attempt to combine everything and in one product initially imposed very strict technical limitations on it. How can I get a long range? That's right, it is necessary either to push it out of the gun too much, or make it light and streamlined for air flow. And in order to get a very long range, you have to do both at once.

As a result, the Americans received a sample weighing 10-13 kg (the first weight for 127-mm ship guns, the second for 155-mm regular NATO field or "Zamvoltovsky" ship system), which were able to accommodate a maximum 6,8 kg of payload (together with the control system ). True, it is assumed that the high accuracy of the ammunition compensates for all this.

As for me, this is a controversial statement given the widespread use of EW systems throughout the world.

And the distance is important

At the same time, the second “record” parameter, the HVP firing range is also not so outrageous. For field howitzers it will be 80 km, and for naval artillery systems to 130 km.

Let us leave aside the ship guns for the time being, and analyze the effectiveness of the new projectile for howitzer artillery. And here I immediately have the first reasonable question: what is outstanding here? New Russian SAU 2C35 “Coalition” is supposed to be equipped with active-reactive ammunition with a firing range of up to 70 km. At the same time, a much heavier “gift” will arrive at the heads of the enemy from the Russian system. And, if necessary, it will also be controlled at the terminal part of the trajectory.

At the same time, it must be remembered that the American artillerymen will be able to shoot accurately and so far only after they replace their guns with longer ones, and, accordingly, will make improvements in other parts of the gun. In general, the new gun is already working, and these are not sickly expenses for the Pentagon’s budget (I can already see how American generals are rubbing their hands), and with a very dubious end result.

By the way, about the cost ...

Here is a separate conversation. When Congress was asked to approve a program for developing a new universal munition, its estimated cost was 25 000 dollars apiece. Even then, skepticism emerged about the need to use such super-expensive toys.

Today, when the estimated cost of the prospective ammunition (far from final) has reached 86 000 dollars, a significant part of the congress has a question: why is all this necessary?

Driving the savages through various “holes” (in the terminology of Donald Trump), that is, in Africa and the countries of the Middle East, they are already somehow expensive. The creativity of American designers can be envied. In what, and in this they are masters. Speak expensive for the Papuans? Well, what if new projectiles are used as an element of missile defense? Brilliant. What is expensive for gunners is cheap for anti-missile defense. American anti-missiles cost millions of dollars apiece, against which 86-100 thousand dollars are worth nothing.

This is exactly how he presents his brilliant idea of ​​using his “super-equipment” Vincent Sabio. According to his idea, vital objects in the United States and on the battlefield will be guarded by American gunners who will shoot down ballistic missiles with ultra-high-speed and precise shells better than any Patriot. At the same time, the estimated cost per target will be “total” 22 shells.

I just want to say to Vincent: stop, remember the laws of physics! What is a super-high projectile? What are xnumx miles per hour? We are not on Privoz.

The M109 “Palladin”, even with a new barrel, is not an electromagnetic gun, it is an ordinary ACS that will push a projectile at a maximum speed of 1-1,2 km per second. And it will be at ground level. Already at 10-15 km altitude, the residual velocity of the projectile, which means that its freedom of maneuver will be very weak, and therefore the probability of hitting will be low. But that's not all. In order for the few seconds that the ballistic warhead of the ballistic missile flies on the final part of the trajectory to launch 22 shells, you need an 22 barrel, since their rate of fire does not allow even an 2 shot to be made during this time. Total we have a division.

Yes, I almost forgot. We need several more sets of radar, each of which is at a minimum costing up to 100 million dollars (oh, how the palms of happy American generals are burning). Funny C'mon, it's just flowers. The funniest thing starts, assuming ...

Electromagnetic gun - it's cool

And let's assume that the ingenious American designers managed to solve the problems of an electromagnetic gun. And they even set them around "strategic objects". But here one must have ... the same 22 trunks (no one has canceled the reloading time limit), which, while working simultaneously, will eat 22 * 25 MW of electricity (this is exactly what the Zamvolta will consume if it is created).

Moreover, such a power to issue when repelling an attack almost instantly (in a matter of seconds) that from a technical point of view is practically impossible task for today.

In total, 550 MW of electricity will be needed, that is, a nuclear power plant unit, a separate substation, and a very complex distribution system will be installed nearby, which, if necessary, cuts off neighboring cities from power consumption and provides the area’s missile defense. And within a radius of a maximum of several tens of kilometers. And I am silent about the cost of 22-like guns. In general, it is already clear that from the point of view of implementation, the idea of ​​Vincent Sabio is complete nonsense.

And we haven't even started testing today. So far we are only evaluating the new American missile defense with a school textbook of physics in our hands.
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. aszzz888
    aszzz888 31 January 2018 06: 23
    Today, when the estimated cost of promising ammunition (far from final) reached $ 86,

    It would be necessary to catch up to hundreds of Baku, so that accounting was considered better ... laughing
    1. siberalt
      siberalt 31 January 2018 06: 43
      Well this is how you need to aim at sea rolling in order to get a blank in the target for 20 km? belay
    2. Starover_Z
      Starover_Z 31 January 2018 08: 46
      Quote: aszzz888
      It would be necessary to catch up to hundreds of Baku, so that accounting was considered better ...

      And we need to ensure that warheads do not stray from nearby explosions, i.e. just strengthen the defense of the "filling" of the warhead!
      Natural, asymmetric answer!
      1. Aleks2048
        Aleks2048 31 January 2018 09: 41
        If a hypersonic missile in the final section, where its speed is close to maximum, even collides with an object the size of a bullet, don’t reinforce the rocket’s head (and it’s unforgettable that it also has radar, that is, the reinforcing material should be radio-transparent), but I’m afraid that the rocket will get a through hole and it’s okay only in the radar, but I think that the consequences will affect not only the fragile filling of the GOS.
        1. your1970
          your1970 31 January 2018 12: 21
          "As a result, the Americans got a weight sample 10-13 kg (first weight for 127 mm ship’s gun, second for 155-mm full-time NATO field or “zamvoltovsky” ship system), which could accommodate a maximum 6,8 kg payload (together with the control system). "
          1) artillery air defense to the ceiling in height 60 years ago, the prospects for an increase in speed are not particularly good. Well, they will raise the ceiling from 10 km to 12 - this is not important for ballistic missiles.155 mm anti-aircraft guns belay - of course it’s great, only here the length of the trunk should be utterly-how to combine this with staff barrel -I do not understand
          2) the projectile weight is only 13 kg of which the load weight is only 6,8 minus the guidance equipment. That is, miserable 3-5 kg ​​remain on the weight of explosives - which will lead to the need to hit the target very precisely: blowing up such a quantity of explosives at a distance of, for example, 50 m - will not bring damage at all. And this, in turn, requires the need for particularly precise guidance
          3) it is less difficult to install a self-blowing system (with a timer) in case of breakdown of our missiles on the BG (logically this should already exist, in case our missiles are intercepted). And this immediately spoils all raspberries with cheap (type) shells. There will be an explosion not on the surface - but at an acceptable height of a kilometer. Sweeter from this the enemy will not
          4) no one canceled the rate of fire
          5) creation is required mass (!!!) SUAO - able to calculate shooting in space. Without massaging - this action is meaningless.
        2. Varyag_0711
          Varyag_0711 31 January 2018 13: 06
          Alex2048 Today, 09:41 ↑
          If a hypersonic rocket in the final section, where its speed is close to maximum, even collides with an object the size of a bullet, do not strengthen the head of the rocket
          Your comment has the keyword “IF” ... In order for at least one fragment to get into the warhead of a missile, you need to know exactly where it will fly from, and most importantly where it will fall and along which path. Or have you never heard that all modern nuclear warheads have a variable flight path in the final section? Apparently this is big news for you? Or do you think that the warhead will fly directly to the target, such as in the forehead and shouting "banzai"? laughing But how many guns would it take to protect at least the Pentagon alone?
          They would think before writing such nonsense ... fool

          P.S. It’s much easier and cheaper to shoot shrapnel towards the rocket, maybe at least something will fall ... laughing
          1. Aleks2048
            Aleks2048 31 January 2018 15: 40
            In general, this was the answer to this:
            And we need to ensure that warheads do not stray from nearby explosions, i.e. just strengthen the defense of the "filling" of the warhead!
            Natural, asymmetric answer!

            And about the theoretical possibility of hitting ... it certainly is, but it is striving to zero ... it's me without
            Quote: Varyag_0711
            Your comment has the keyword “IF” ... In order for at least one fragment to get into the warhead of a missile, you need to know exactly where it will fly from, and most importantly where it will fall and along which path. Or have you never heard that all modern nuclear warheads have a variable flight path in the final section? Apparently this is big news for you? Or do you think that the warhead will fly directly to the target, such as in the forehead and shouting "banzai"? But how many guns would it take to protect at least the Pentagon alone?
            They would think before writing such nonsense ...

            I know such opuses. lol
            But to strengthen the rocket from splinters ... this is generally a bolt. negative
  2. 210ox
    210ox 31 January 2018 06: 24
    Cut ... cut ... Again. They are working on something new. Yes, it may not work out and very expensive. They can afford it. It’s a pity that we don’t have this.
    1. engineer74
      engineer74 31 January 2018 07: 59
      The electromagnetic gun was something new, but it did not take off. And such a missile defense, if it is not fake, is a mega "Shell" for mega money! laughing It’s a pity the guys can close the project, that’s how they frolic as much as they can, which can take a ride and a couple of years of a full life! bully
    2. zyzx
      zyzx 31 January 2018 08: 43
      Why do we need this?
    3. Lopatov
      Lopatov 31 January 2018 09: 39
      Quote: 210ox
      They are WORKING on something new.

      Everything is much, much more fun.
      There is an Italo-German series of volcano subcaliber HE shells for barreled ground and naval artillery. Designed, tested, getting ready for arming. BAE Systems offered them to the US Army.
      But in the USA, apparently, they decided to develop them a second time.

      There is a German Smart Camp system designed to protect against mortar and artillery shelling
      And apparently, and its Americans are going to develop.
  3. The comment was deleted.
  4. zzdimk
    zzdimk 31 January 2018 06: 30
    Why not? To shoot down rockets with peas is a new direction in the pro.
    1. raw174
      raw174 31 January 2018 09: 02
      Quote: zzdimk
      To shoot down rockets with peas is a new direction in the pro.

      Well, managed to get into the warhead of the ICBM, it will explode at a distance how much? 15-30 km, and even over your head ... Will they be well? To these anti-aircraft gunners?
      1. Aleks2048
        Aleks2048 31 January 2018 09: 59
        If we talk about nuclear munitions, then simply destruction of the munition will occur, which obviously will not provoke a nuclear explosion and then such anti-aircraft guns will obviously be significantly better than at the epicenter of a nuclear explosion.
        If we talk about the non-nuclear stuffing of a missile being shot down, then here, too, on the whole, the ABM calculation will obviously be much better, because getting a shell or fragments of it into a rocket at a distance of 15-30 km is already a miracle, but oh well. If a foreign object hits even one or more of the missiles, it’s clear that at such speeds it will penetrate the hull for take-off and, in passing, will cause internal damage to the rocket ... the most varied here depends on the imagination ... But in any case, it is unlikely that this will undermine the charge of the rocket , and if it does, then the ABM calculation is unlikely to suffer from rocket debris.
        I agree that problems from rocket fragments can also hurt the calculation of such a missile defense and if such a system is on the ship then the ship itself, but this is clearly better than hitting a whole missile.
        1. raw174
          raw174 31 January 2018 12: 41
          Quote: Alex2048
          If we talk about nuclear munitions, then simply destruction of the munition will occur, which clearly does not provoke a nuclear explosion

          Yeah, but I thought something that an explosion would happen ...
  5. DM51
    DM51 31 January 2018 08: 03
    In order to launch 22 shells in a few seconds that the warhead of a ballistic missile flies on the final section of the trajectory, 22 barrels are needed, since their rate of fire does not allow even 2 shots to be fired during this time. Total we have a division.

    22 barrels - this is if the rocket is one, and if two - already 44 and you need to know in advance which side the threat will fly in, and if the rocket flies from the other side, not from where the howitzers are directed? Well this is to be safe from all sides, how many guns are needed ?! In short, all howitzers must be taken away from the US Army and the ILC, lengthen their barrels and let them protect the peaceful sky of democracy
  6. savage1976
    savage1976 31 January 2018 08: 30
    It is urgent to announce that Russia is afraid of a new direction for development and asks Fashington not to develop this direction.
    1. meandr51
      meandr51 31 January 2018 09: 21
      All imitate a panic!
  7. Butchcassidy
    Butchcassidy 31 January 2018 08: 39
    I feel that specialists will come and tell you that your shrapnel with tungsten rods is nonsense, and all hell and Izr ... the progressive world))) builds missile defense on the principle of point-to-point guidance.
  8. Bouncer
    Bouncer 31 January 2018 09: 00
    Delirium is not delirium - practice will show
  9. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 31 January 2018 09: 17
    In short, anti-aircraft guns with a controlled bullet are a good idea. But it does not stand up to criticism in the role of a missile defense system. They have more of such ideas - so that there would not be enough money for conventional weapons ... laughing
  10. Wedmak
    Wedmak 31 January 2018 09: 22
    The most logical use of this projectile is the destruction of point lightly armored targets. That is, jihad mobiles, self-propelled guns, armored personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles ... But the tanks will not be able to ... will only scratch the armor. And even in this case, the logic is at odds with the price of the projectile. In my opinion, anyway, 86 thousand bucks is a bit much for the destruction of one BMP.
    1. Varyag_0711
      Varyag_0711 31 January 2018 13: 17
      That is to say the least. Imagine how much more dough will be needed to remake at least part of the artillery for this shell. As a result, all this will result in the fact that on a typewriter with a cost of 3-5 pieces Baku will be fired by a shell with a cost of $ 150 thousand. It’s not too sick to play war games ... laughing
    2. Aqela
      Aqela 4 February 2018 22: 16
      In my opinion, 86 thousand bucks is still a bit much for the destruction of one BMP.

      How to say... request As my sclerosis tells me, the cost of modern BMP starts somewhere with one lyama ... what 86 kilobax, sort of, comparable to the price of the notorious javelin wassat Another thing is that you can’t hide such a foule in the bushes, but with the task of crushing armored vehicles from a distance of more than 10 km, it seems like the Israelis are swarming unsuccessfully ... belay
  11. g1washntwn
    g1washntwn 31 January 2018 09: 37
    Something like this ...
  12. Mavric
    Mavric 31 January 2018 10: 11
    Yes, let them build, why dissuade;)
  13. M0xHaTka
    M0xHaTka 31 January 2018 10: 26
    In the beginning there was a universal spear. Stab, chop, cut.
    Then there was a universal arrow. On animals, on people.
    Then there was the universal core. On people, on walls, on cities.
    Now there is a universal shell. At a time when specialized ones perform their tasks better. The question is - what the hell ... on? The answer is I really want money.
    1. Aqela
      Aqela 4 February 2018 22: 36
      The replica is funny, but not true. The spear never allowed to cut and very rarely - to cut. Please do not confuse it with glaive, naginata and halberd, which were developed and began to be widely used around the century since the 15th (as one-time handicrafts have been before, but metal processing technologies were not perfect enough, and high-tech alloys, well, like black bronze, there was a terrible deficit, one such uberwaffe did not resolve the situation for an entire army). This is the first. request
      Secondly, since the technology of bow manufacture has stepped up to the level of not even a composite one, but simply a “long bow” (with which, according to legend, Robin Hood ran and aimed the exterminus of the French knightly cavalry), a lot of special arrows (armor-piercing, shred and a lot more), because the “universal arrow” could not break through a cotton robe lined with cotton and was only traumatic when hunting for marmots and hares; to catch even a small deer, it was necessary to get to the place ... what
      Thirdly, there were no universal cores at all. There were stone, lead, cast iron, bombs, bibs, etc. This happened already from the moment of the appearance of firearms, as such, even peepals, mattresses and arquebuses, until the appearance of any serious heavy artillery. About shot and buckshot, as a means of destruction of artillery should be mentioned? request
      In terms of the versatility of rifled artillery shells ... Well, there never was complete versatility, but even shrapnel shells were used in World War I modes in blasting at a distance, as a buckshot and a "strike" on direct fire against armored vehicles ...
      And the fact that military developments were never cheap and often served as a cover for theft ... Well, I won’t be surprised that something like that happened under the pharaohs of Ancient Egypt laughing
  14. iouris
    iouris 31 January 2018 13: 20
    This is the second series. Referring to the mythical US missile defense program, the ruling circles of the USSR staged a counter-revolution, for which they torn the state and the economy, the country was put under external control. And what, did our beloved Americans help us?
  15. nnz226
    nnz226 31 January 2018 13: 28
    Let them first learn how to fall into a freely falling bomb! And then they will learn how to maneuver warhead missiles!
  16. the same doctor
    the same doctor 31 January 2018 14: 24
    Bullshit, but new technologies will be created. The plane of the Wright brothers from the position of the author would also be nonsense.
    1. Aqela
      Aqela 4 February 2018 22: 46
      But it is unlikely. Mozhaisky, who was trying to stir up something of the kind on the steam train fairly earlier than the Right Bratans, was quite a combat officer and clearly understood the prospect of using flying vehicles heavier than air. In addition, airplanes found their first combat use almost immediately, during the 1912 Balkan War.
      In 1903, the Wright brothers built the Flyer-1 engine, the material of which was the structural material usual for Wright devices — spruce, strong and light wood.
  17. Tatar 174
    Tatar 174 31 January 2018 16: 30
    It would be better if they didn’t prove anything to them, let them do it ... And they will lose time and swell money, not ours!
  18. Berkut
    Berkut 31 January 2018 19: 56
    Did I understand the author correctly that the F-35 is a fake? If so, then I will sleep soundly now.
    Regarding the required energy ... Power must be given in an impulse, lasting in milliseconds. And this is a completely different matter. Technologies like supercapacitors may well allow you to accumulate a charge and give it away almost instantly
    1. Julio Jurenito
      Julio Jurenito 2 February 2018 13: 27
      And if you missed ?! Or was one struck, and after it a whole swarm? Yes, even with false goals?
    2. Aqela
      Aqela 4 February 2018 22: 59
      Well, yes, milliseconds. So what? With an explosive mass of a 155 mm shell less than 3 kg (i.e., weaker than a 122 mm howitzer), an approach time at which not only a ballistic missile flies off somewhere, but the ship is able to sail away somewhere ... Efficiency seems on the verge of firing from a Browning M2 machine gun at a distance of 5 km (that is, it can fly in, a bullet can fly, only what will it hit at a rate of 1-2 shots per minute? request The Germans tried to use the Colossal cannon in Paris. The effect was purely propaganda ... wassat
  19. BastaKarapuzik And
    BastaKarapuzik And 31 January 2018 22: 20
    And why is the Shell rocket not an artillery guided projectile?
    The first stage works literally in seconds, at which time the required speed is reported to the rocket, is this launch different from a shot from a cannon? The lack of a trunk?
    MLRS, for example, also dispenses with the barrel, although in essence it is art.
    No wonder the developers of the Shell are already working on a version for hitting ballistic targets.
    1. your1970
      your1970 1 February 2018 08: 38
      Quote: BastaKarapuzikI
      And why is the Shell rocket not an artillery guided projectile?
      -Do you know the difference between missiles and shells? It is impossible to disperse a projectile above certain speeds ...
      1. BastaKarapuzik And
        BastaKarapuzik And 3 February 2018 20: 59
        The Shell rocket and the artillery shell mentioned in the news have much in common.
        Namely, the separation of the means of gaining speed and the means of ensuring its maintenance, or slow subsidence.
        As a result, we have a compact and relatively cheap warhead.
        In the details, they, of course, are very different, I did not say the opposite.
  20. kolyhalovs
    kolyhalovs 1 February 2018 14: 02
    How can I get a longer range? That's right, you have to either push him too hard out of the gun, or make easy and streamlined for airflow.

    Author, well, mine! Open and re-read physics. And then experience: take a weight of 32 kg and a feather and see what you can throw further. Air resistance stops light objects very much. The projectile should be as small as possible (across), as heavy as possible and as fast as possible.